Generalized Majority Rule (was Re: Bruce, Condorcet & Copeland)

[Steve Eppley]

Mike Ossipoff wrote:
[snip]
>One way that I've worded this has been my "Generalized Majority Standard":
>
>A group of voters consisting of a full majority of all the voters

When is a majority not a "full" majority?
Could those 13 words be replaced by:  A majority of the voters

>should be able to get any result that they all want (electing
>someone or preventing the election of 1 or more candidates),
>without having to rank a less-liked alternative equal to or over 
>a more-liked one. 
>
>And, under as broad a range of conditions as possible, we'd like
>the members of that majority to be able to get what they all want
>without any kind of defensive strategy at all, including
>truncation. 
[snip]

Would this be another way to express this standard?:
  Each voter should be able to *both* vote for some candidates and
  against others.  S/he shouldn't have to express only one of these 
  two goals.

I think the generalization of majority rule to "voting against" is
implicit using this wording.  This also generalizes even further, to
all voters and not just the majority, so no group appears privileged
and there's less complexity.  Comments?

--Steve